ÿWPC' …4Vj 0 (y¡w@© 0lé 0DU 0J™ 0Tã 0^7 0h• 0rý 0|o 0†ë 0q 1u 0dv UBÚ % U 6" B)X DC AMÄ BU*.Xën«Y· D3»Ñ 0@Zv~švÓ AOë%Æ:& 0D' D/D' Bs'R¦"ÔøÔô3|x($¡¡ DENHe e D  Ó€((3úÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òMay€13,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó áÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ ôÔFederal€case€law€is€used€in€interpreting€discrimination€under€the€THRA,€à0 àsince€the€stated€purpose€and€intent€of€the€Tennessee€Act€is€to€execute€theÏpolicies€embodied€within€the€federal€anti„discrimination€acts.€T.C.A.€ðð€4„21„101(a)(1).òò€€Spicer€v.€Beaman€Bottling€Co.óó,€937€S.W.2d€884€(Tenn.€1996).Ì ¡Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Ô€ ôÔAppellant€and€Appellee€both€spend€portions€of€their€brief€arguingÏà0 àregarding€which€statute€of€limitations€would€apply.€€In€the€past,€THRAÏcases€had€used€T.C.A.€ðð€28„3„104(a),€the€general€statute€of€limitationsÏon€personal€tort€actions.€€Actions€were€required€to€be€brought€withinÏone€year€after€the€cause€of€action€accrued.€€The€THRA€was€then€amendedÏto€include€its€own€limitations€period,€as€quoted€above.€€T.C.A.€ðð€4„21„311(d)€(Supp.1996).€€The€amended€statute€went€into€effect€on€May€22,Ï1992.€€As€Plaintiffððs€complaint€asked€for€relief€for€incidents€afterÏthis€point,€her€case€is€covered€by€this€amendment.Ìà àNote€that€this€determination€is€does€not€effect€the€outcome€of€the€case€à0 àbecause€both€limitations€periods€are€for€one€year€and€both€incorporate€theÏcontinuing€violation€theory,€either€through€case€law€(T.C.A.€ðð€28„3„104(a))€orÏimplicit€in€the€statutory€language€(T.C.A.€ðð€4„21„311(d))€.€òòSpiceróó,€n.6;€òòWeberÏv.€Mosesóó,€938€S.W.2d€387,€n.€4€(Tenn.€1996).Ì ­Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Ô€ ôÔòòSpiceróó€discussed€two€branches€of€the€continuing€violation€doctrine.€€à0 àThe€first€category€is€found€where€there€is€evidence€of€present€discriminatoryÏactivity,€for€example€where€disparate€work€assignments€or€pay€rates€areÏimposed€on€similarly€situated€employee€groups.€€This€category€is€sometimesÏcalled€ð ðserialð ð€continuing€violations.€€The€second€category€is€used€whereÏthere€has€been€a€longstanding€and€demonstrable€policy€of€discrimination,€suchÏas€an€established€pattern€of€paying€men€more€than€women.€This€category€isÏsometimes€called€a€ð ðsystemicð ð€violation.€€Plaintiffððs€claim€does€not€presentÏevidence€of€an€overreaching€policy€on€the€part€of€the€bank.€€Therefore,€weÏmust€determine€whether€it€meets€the€criteria€for€a€serial€violation.ÌÌ$$$$'ÿÿdxd ÇÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Ô€ ôÔThis€figure€incorporated€the€differences€in€the€Frazier€and€OsborneÏà0 àsalaries€for€the€second€half€of€1992,€all€of€1993€and€1994,€and€eleven„twelfths€of€1995.€€This€time€period€corresponds€with€Frazierððs€1992Ïdemotion€to€the€1995€merger€of€Heritage€Federal€and€First€American.Ì ‘Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Ô€ ôÔThis€figure€has€also€been€prorated€to€exclude€the€first€half€of€1991€à0 àand€last€month€in€1995.€€The€Trial€Court€calculated€this€proration€by€takingÏthe€number€of€months€for€which€Frazier€should€have€been€granted€theÏcompensation€(June€1992€to€Nov.€1995€=€42€months)€and€the€number€of€months€inÏwhich€Osborne€received€the€compensation€(July€1991€to€Nov.€1995€=€53€months).€ÏThe€total€value€of€the€compensation€($2,017,600)€was€multiplied€by€42/53€toÏreach€the€award€of€$1,598,856.€Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ  ÑÒ Ü ÒÒ ° ÒÑ ý ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€ÊXXdÈdÈ7ќـ€ÙßR€#&"A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌ€€€€à@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àEASTERN€SECTIONÌó óÌÌÌÌBETTY€S.€FRAZIER,à àà àà à)€C/A€NO.€03A01„9611„CH„00361Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff„Appellee,à àà à)€SULLIVAN€CHANCERYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€HON.€RICHARD€E.€LADD,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€CHANCELLORÌHERITAGE€FEDERAL€BANK€FORà à)ÌSAVINGS€AND€HERITAGE€FEDERALà à)ÌBANK€SHARES,€INC.,€and€now,à à)Ìpursuant€to€a€plan€of€merger,à à)ÌFIRST€AMERICAN€CORPORATIONà à)Ìand€FIRST€AMERICAN€NATIONALà à)ÌBANK,à àà àà àà àà à)€AFFIRMEDÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)€ANDÌà àDefendants„Appellants.à à)€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌCECIL€W.€LAWS,€Kingsport,€for€Plaintiff„Appellee.ÌÌJOHN€B.€PHILLIPS,€JEFFREY€S.€NORWOOD€and€RAYMOND€H.€HIXSON,€Jr.,ÏMILLER€&€MARTIN,€Chattanooga,€JOHN€S.€BRYANT€and€KAREN€L.€C.ÏELLIS,€BASS,€BERRY€&€SIMS,€PLC,€Nashville,€and€WILLIAM€T.ÏGAMBLE,€WILSON,€WORLEY,€GAMBLE€&€WARD,€P.C.,€Kingsport,€forÏDefendants„Appellants.ÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌÌà@ àòòÌÓÓóóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àFranks.€J.ÌÌà àà àIn€this€action€for€damages,€the€Chancellor€determinedÏthat€plaintiffððs€employer€had€discriminated€against€plaintiff€onÍthe€basis€of€age€and€sex,€and€awarded€damages€pursuant€to€theÏTennessee€Human€Rights€Act,€(THRA)€T.C.A.€ðð4„21„101,€òòet€seq.€€óóÏDefendants€have€appealed.Ìà àà àPlaintiff€was€born€September€7,€1937,€and€beganÏworking€at€Heritage€Federal€Bank€as€a€teller€in€1959.€€She€roseÏthrough€the€ranks€over€time,€becoming€a€Senior€Vice€President€inÏ1984.€€Her€work€encompassed€many€branches€of€the€bank€andÏprimarily€centered€around€customer€service€and€tellerÏsupervision.€€Ìà àà àThe€nature€of€her€work€changed€in€June€1991,€when€anÏorganizational€restructuring€of€the€bank€took€place.€WilliamÏKreis€replaced€Wendall€Kirk€as€President€of€the€Bank.€€PlaintiffÏretained€her€Senior€Vice€President€title€but€was€moved€from€theÏCustomer€Service€Department€to€Customer€Relations.€€A€youngerÏman,€Don€Osborne,€took€over€Customer€Service.€€She€testifiedÏthat€she€understood€her€reassignment€to€be€a€ð ðlateralð ð€move.€ÏHer€annual€performance€evaluation€that€July€contained€someÏnegative€remarks€but€she€received€a€salary€increase.Ìà àà àIn€the€spring€of€1992,€the€bank€was€converted€into€aÏpublicly€held€company.€€Unlike€other€senior€management,Ïplaintiff€was€not€offered€any€of€the€benefits€of€the€stockÏoption€plan€or€listed€by€name€on€the€companyððs€prospectus.€€ThatÏprospectus€also€showed€that€other€executive€officers€wereÏreceiving€salaries€significantly€higher€than€hers.à àÌà àà àBetween€June€and€September€of€that€year,€she€completedÏseveral€special€projects,€but€was€not€given€any€new€assignments.ÏShe€testified€that€she€was€excluded€from€meetings€and€could€notÏget€secretarial€support.€€Her€annual€performance€evaluation€thatÏSeptember€was€more€negative€than€in€the€past€and€stated€that€sheÏhad€trouble€working€with€people.€€She€received€no€raise€thatÏyear€and€her€title€was€downgraded€to€Vice€President.€€She€noÏlonger€reported€directly€to€the€President€of€the€bank.Ìà àà àIn€April€of€1993,€her€office€was€moved€from€theÏexecutive€suite€to€a€downtown€office€and€her€portfolio€of€dutiesÏwas€narrowed.€€In€March€1994,€plaintiffððs€position€as€head€ofÏthe€Customer€Relations€Department€was€taken€over€by€a€35€year„old€woman,€Della€Walker.€€Plaintiff€was€put€in€charge€of€a€newlyÏcreated€department€supervising€one€employee€and€her€office€wasÏmoved€to€the€basement€floor.€€Ìà àà àPlaintiff€filed€suit€on€June€29,€1994,€allegingÏviolations€of€the€Tennessee€Human€Rights€Act€(THRA)€and€theÏfederal€Equal€Pay€Act.€€In€the€trial€before€the€Chancellor,€theÏdefendant€was€found€to€have€violated€the€THRA€by€discriminatingÏagainst€the€plaintiff€on€the€basis€of€her€age€and€gender.€€TheÏChancellor€determined€the€discrimination€had€begun€with€the€1991Ïreorganization€and€continued€until€the€lawsuit€was€filed.€€HeÏassessed€damages€from€May€22,€1992€and€awarded€$2,242,450.28€toÏthe€plaintiff.Ìà àà àDefendants€insist€the€Chancellor€erred€in€finding€thatÏplaintiff€was€discriminated€against€on€the€basis€of€age€and€sex.€ÏUnder€the€THRA,€it€is€unlawful€for€an€employer€ð ðto€discriminateÏagainst€an€individual€with€respect€to€compensation,€terms,Ïconditions,€or€privileges€of€employment€because€of€suchÏindividualððs€race,€creed,€color,€religion,€sex,€age€or€nationalÏorigin.ð ð€€T.C.A.€ðð4„21„401(a)(1).€€Ìà àà àA€prima€facie€caseòò€óórequires€that€the€plaintiffÏdemonstrate€that€he/she€was€a€member€of€the€protected€class,€wasÏsubject€to€an€adverse€employment€action,€was€qualified€for€theÏposition,€and€was€replaced€by€a€younger€person.€€òòMcDonnellÏDouglas€Corp.€v.€Green× ƒ' ××  ×óó,€411€U.S.€792,€93€S.Ct.€1817€(1973);ÏòòBrenner€v.€Textron€Aerostructuresóó,€874€S.W.2d€579€(Tenn.App.Ï1993).€€Once€a€prima€facie€case€is€shown,€the€burden€shifts€toÏdefendant€to€articulate€a€legitimate€nondiscriminatory€reasonÏfor€its€employment€decision.€€òòBrenner€óóat€583.€€The€burden€thenÏagain€goes€back€to€plaintiff€to€establish€that€the€employerððsÏreason€is€a€pretext€or€ð ðnot€worthy€of€belief.ð ðòò€€Id.óóÌà àà àThe€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€theÏChancellorððs€finding€that€the€plaintiff€was€the€object€of€ageÏand€sex€discrimination.€€T.R.A.P.€Rule€13(d).€€DefendantððsÏargument€that€plaintiffððs€demotions€did€not€constitute€ð ðadverseÍemployment€decisionsð ð€as€required€for€a€prima€facie€case,Ïbecause€her€salary€was€not€reduced,€is€without€merit.€€TheÏconstant€reduction€in€her€duties€and€prestige€at€the€bank€wereÏð ðmaterially€adverse€changesð ð€in€her€terms€and€conditions€œof›Ïemployment€sufficient€to€qualify€as€discriminatory€actions.€€òòSeeÏKauffman€v.€Kent€State€Univ.óó,€815€F.Supp.€1077,€1084€(N.D.OhioÏ1993).€€The€argument€that€Plaintiff€was€not€qualified€for€theÏjob€that€was€taken€away€from€her€is€not€supported€by€theÏevidence€of€her€years€of€experience€in€this€position€and€theÏChancellor€rejected€this€out€of€hand,€finding€the€evidence€notÏto€be€credible.€€Ìà àà àThe€reasons€offered€by€defendant€for€her€demotionsÏwere€her€alleged€difficulty€working€with€people,€which€resultedÏin€substantial€employee€turnover.€€The€Chancellor€found€thatÏthese€impressions€of€plaintiff€were€due€to€the€policies€put€inÏplace€by€Bank€President€Kirk,€specifically€the€policy€of€hiringÏð ðfull„time€part„timeð ð€tellers€who€worked€full„time€but€were€notÏoffered€benefits.€€The€Chancellor€found€that€the€plaintiff€wasÏnot€responsible€for€these€problems€and€that€the€profferedÏreasons€were€pretexts.€€These€findings€are€supported€by€theÏtestimony€of€board€members€that€plaintiff€was€not€reallyÏconsidered€part€of€the€senior€management€and€by€the€bankÏpresident€Kreis€that€he€felt€she€had€risen€as€far€as€she€wasÏgoing€to€at€the€bank.€€The€findings€of€the€trial€court€thatÍdefendants€violated€THRA€are€supported€by€the€evidence.€ÏT.R.A.P.€Rule€13(d).€€òòSeeóó€òòHeld€v.€Gulf€Oil€Co.óó,€684€F.2d€427,Ï429€(1982).Ìà àà àNext,€defendants€insist€that€the€Chancellor€erred€inÏapplying€the€ð ðcontinuing€violationð ð€theory€to€extend€relief€toÏplaintiff,€which€would€otherwise€be€barred€by€the€statute€ofÏlimitations.€€Ìà àà àThe€concept€of€the€ð ðcontinuing€violationð ð€has€beenÏadopted€by€Tennessee€from€federal€case€law,€as€a€means€forÏdealing€with€discrimination€which€may€not€be€immediatelyÏapparent€to€the€victim.òò€€Spicer€v.€Beaman€Bottling€Co.óó,€937ÏS.W.2d€884,€889€(Tenn.€1996).€€The€doctrine€of€continuingÏviolations€provides€that€a€plaintiff€may€be€granted€relief€for€aÏtime„barred€act€by€linking€a€series€of€related€acts,€one€or€moreÏof€which€falls€within€the€limitations€period.€€òòSpiceróó€at€886;€òòÏSelan€v.€Kileyóó,€969€F.2d€560,€564€(7th€Cir.1992).€€The€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court€explained€the€reasons€which€courts€have€given€forÏadopting€this€doctrine:€€ÌÓÓà0 àà0 àFirst,€they€emphasize€that€Title€VII€is€a€remedialÏstatute€designed€to€eliminate€discrimination€and€makeÏparties€whole.€€Second,€they€stress€that€employees€areÏgenerally€lay€people€and€are€unaware€that€they€mustÏact€quickly€or€risk€losing€their€cause€of€action.€ÏOften€employees€fear€reprisal€or€turn€to€others€forÏhelp,€and€in€so€doing,€delay€action€on€their€causeÏuntil€the€statute€has€expired.€€Finally,€and€perhapsÏmost€importantly,€those€courts€recognize€that€manyÏdiscriminatory€acts€cannot€be€viewed€as€discreteÏincidents,€and€often€unfold€rather€than€occur,€makingÏit€difficult€to€precisely€pinpoint€the€time€when€theyÍtake€place.€€ÌÌà0 àà0 àSpicer€at€889.ÌÒ Ü ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÌÒ Ü ÒÒ  ÒÒ Ü ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓà àà àThe€crucial€issue€is€whether€the€nature€of€theÏdiscriminatory€acts€were€ð ðnot€apparent€when€they€were€committedÏbut€became€so€when€viewed€in€the€light€of€the€later€acts.ð ðòò€ÏMoskowitz€v.€Trustees€of€Purdue€Universityóó,€5€F.3d€279,€282€(7thÏCir.€1993).Ìà àà àThe€limitations€period€for€filing€suit€when€plaintiffÏinstituted€this€action€was€contained€in€T.C.A.€ðð4„21„311(d),Ïwhich€required€that€suit€be€filed€ð ðwithin€one€(1)€year€after€theÏalleged€discriminatory€practice€ceases.ð ð× ƒ( ××  ×€€Plaintiffs€action€wasÏfiled€on€June€29,€1994,€and€to€establish€that€her€suit€wasÏtimely€filed,€she€had€to€prove€that€a€discriminatory€actÏoccurred€on€or€after€June€29,€1993.€€She€has€met€thisÏrequirement,€in€the€form€of€the€March€1994€demotion€from€theÏhead€of€Customer€Relations€Department€to€work€that€can€beÏdescribed€as€clerical.Ìà àà àThe€question€thus€becomes€whether€the€earlierÏviolations€can€be€ð ðlinkedð ð× ƒ) ××  ×€to€this€1994€demotion.€€The€inquiryÏis€whether€the€earlier€acts€were€ð ðrelated€closely€enough€toÏconstitute€a€continuing€violationð ð€or€were€ð ðmerely€discrete,Ïisolated,€and€completed€acts€which€must€be€regarded€asÏindividual€violations.ð ð€€òòBerry€v.€Board€of€Supervisors€ofÏL.S.U.óó,€715€F.2d€971,€981€(5th€Cir.€1983).€€To€make€thisÏdistinction,€òòSpiceróó€cited€approvingly€of€the€factors€put€forthÏin€òòBerryóó:€€ÌÓÓà0 àà0 àThe€first€is€subject€matter.€€Do€the€alleged€actsÏinvolve€the€same€type€of€discrimination,€tending€toÏconnect€them€in€a€continuing€violation?€€The€second€isÏfrequency.€€Are€the€alleged€acts€recurring€(e.g.,€aÏbi„weekly€paycheck)€or€more€in€the€nature€of€anÏisolated€work€assignment€or€employment€decision?€€TheÏthird€factor,€perhaps€of€most€importance,€is€degree€ofÏpermanence.€€Does€the€act€have€the€degree€ofÏpermanence€which€should€trigger€an€employeeððsÏawareness€of€and€duty€to€assert€his€or€her€rights,€orÏwhich€should€indicate€to€the€employee€that€theÏcontinued€existence€of€the€adverse€consequences€of€theÏact€is€to€be€expected€without€being€dependent€on€aÏcontinuing€intent€to€discriminate?ÌÌÓÓòòBerryóó€at€981.€€ÌThe€importance€of€the€third€factor€has€been€stressed,€as€a€courtÍexamines:€€ÌÓÓà0 àà0 àWhat€justifies€treating€a€series€of€separateÏviolations€as€a€continuing€violation?€€Only€that€itÏwould€have€been€unreasonable€to€require€the€plaintiffÏto€sue€separately€on€each€one.€€In€a€setting€ofÏalleged€discrimination,€ordinarily€this€will€beÏbecause€the€plaintiff€had€no€reason€to€believe€he€wasÏa€victim€of€discrimination€until€a€series€of€adverseÏactions€established€a€visible€pattern€ofÏdiscriminatory€treatment.€ÌÌòòÓÓMalhotra€v.€Cotter€&€Co.óó,€885€F.2d€1305,€1310€(7th€Cir.€1989).Ìà àà àAlthough€the€Chancellor€found€that€the€discriminationÏbegan€with€the€June€1991€reorganization€of€the€bank,€it€is€clearÏthat€plaintiff€was€not€then€aware€that€her€change€of€positionÏwas€the€result€of€discrimination.€€She€understood€the€move€to€beÏð ðlateralð ð€in€nature€and€received€an€increase€in€salary€thatÏyear.Ìà àà àHer€feelings€that€all€was€not€well€with€her€employmentÏsituation€began€in€January€1992,€when€she€was€not€named€in€theÏcompany€prospectus€and€learned€that€her€salary€was€significantlyÏlower€than€others€in€senior€management.€€She€knew€that€there€wasÏa€problem€by€September€of€1992,€when€her€title€was€downgradedÏfrom€Senior€Vice€President€to€Vice€President,€and€she€was€noÏlonger€being€given€assignments€and€was€being€excluded€fromÏmeetings,€and€secretaries€assigned€to€her€were€doing€othersððÏwork€instead.€€She€received€a€negative€performance€evaluation,Ïand€was€no€longer€to€report€to€the€President€of€the€bank.€ÏAlthough€she€knew€her€55th€birthday€was€coming€up€and€lookedÍinto€the€retirement€benefits€for€which€she€would€be€eligible,€atÏthis€point€no€member€of€senior€management€had€initiated€aÏdiscussion€of€her€retirement€or€mentioned€her€age€as€aÏliability.Ìà àà àIt€was€not€until€approximately€August€of€1993,€whenÏher€office€had€been€moved€from€the€executive€suite€to€a€downtownÏoffice€and€her€portfolio€of€duties€had€been€changed€and€narrowedÏagain,€that€she€was€pressured€to€retire.€€This€pressure€took€theÏform€of€the€bank€presidentððs€secretary€repeatedly€asking€her€ifÏshe€was€going€to€retire.€€It€also€occurred€when€she€had€aÏconversation€with€her€supervisor€in€which€she€stated€that€theseÏactions€looked€like€another€demotion€and€that€it€was€obviousÏthat€they€wanted€to€ð ðget€ridð ð€of€her.€€Her€supervisorððs€responseÏwas€ð ð[o]h,€I€just€happen€to€have€that€retirement€paper€that€wasÏtalked€about€earlier.ð ð€€This€is€the€point€at€which€she€could€beÏdeemed€aware€of€the€discriminatory€nature€of€her€demotions.òò€€SeeÏHull€v.€Cuyahoga€Valley€Bd.€of€Educ.óó,€926€F.2d€505€(6th€Cir.Ï1991)(ð ða€court€should€determine€what€event€should€have€alertedÏthe€average€lay€person€to€protect€his€rightsð ð,òò€quoting€Conlin€v.ÏBlanchardóó,€890€F.2d€811,€815€(6th€Cir.€1989));€òòcf.€Egan€v.€PalosÏCommunity€Hospitalóó,€889€F.Supp.€331€(N.D.Ill.€1995)(noÏcontinuing€violation€to€save€age€discrimination€claim€whereÏplaintiff€was€put€on€notice€of€the€problem€early€on€in€herÏemployment€by€supervisorððs€remarks€that€ð ða€lot€of€changes€had€toÍbe€made€and€that€only€young€people€could€make€changes.ð ð).Ìà àà àUsing€the€more€specific€òòBerryóó€analysis,€the€allegedÏacts€do€involve€the€same€type€of€discrimination,€a€series€ofÏdemotions.€€The€steady€recurrence€of€the€acts,€is€less€favorableÏto€plaintiff,€as€the€demotions€took€place€in€an€irregularÏfashion€over€4€years.€€However,€the€third€and€most€importantÏfactor,€the€degree€of€permanence€triggering€an€employeeððsÏawareness€and€duty€to€assert€his/her€rights,€is€not€establishedÏuntil€the€August€1993€retirement€discussion.€€Although€theÏprevious€actions€by€the€bank€were€not€particularly€temporary€inÏnature,€she€had€no€reason€to€assume€that€hard€work€would€notÏturn€the€situation€around.€€òòGlass€v.€Petro„Tex€Chemical€Corp.óó,Ï757€F.2d€1554,€1562€(5th.Cir.€1985).€€The€ChancellorÏcharacterized€the€discrimination€as€ð ðgradual€and€insidiousð ð,€andÏwe€conclude€her€duty€to€assert€a€discrimination€case€was€notÏtriggered€until€she€knew€that€her€age€and€gender€had€played€aÏrole€in€the€demotions.òò€€Id.€óó€òòAccord€Vakharia€v.€Little€Co.€ofÏMary€Hosp.óó,€917€F.Supp.€1282,€1294€(N.D.Ill.€1996);€€òòcf.€BerryóóÏ(plaintiff€was€aware€of€and€believed€that€sex€discrimination€wasÏthe€reason€for€the€universityððs€practices€for€years€before€sheÏfiled€suit).Ìà àà àWe€believe€plaintiffððs€situation€is€one€in€which€theÏcontinuing€violation€theory€is€justified,€i.e.,€where€theÏplaintiff€is€unaware€that€he/she€is€the€victim€of€discriminationÍuntil€several€discriminatory€acts€have€already€taken€place.€€òòSeeÏMalhotraóó€at€1310.Ìà àà àDamages€can€be€assessed€for€conduct€that€was€part€ofÏthe€continuing€violation€and€occurred€outside€the€limitationsÏperiod.€€òòBerryóó€at€980;€òòSabree€v.€United€Brotherhood€ofÏCarpenters€and€Joiners€Local€No.€33,óó€921€F.2d€396,€401€(1st€Cir.Ï1990).;€€òòMcKenzie€v.€Sawyeróó,€684€F.2d€62,€72€(D.C.Cir.€1982);€ÏòòFerner€v.€Village€of€Sheffieldóó,€656€F.Supp.€1017€(N.D.OhioÏ1987).€€The€remedy€should€represent€a€reasonable€attempt€toÏrestore€plaintiff€to€a€position€where€she€would€have€been,Ïabsent€the€unlawful€discrimination.€€òòAlbermarle€Paper€Co.€v.ÏMoodyóó,€422€U.S.€405,€421,€95€S.Ct.€2362,€2373€(1975).Ìà àà àThe€Trial€Court€based€its€assessment€of€damages€on€aÏcomparison€with€the€compensation€received€by€Don€Osborne,€theÏemployee€who€took€over€plaintiffððs€department€in€the€1991Ïreorganization.€€This€compensation€included€the€differences€inÏtheir€salaries€of€$328,366× ƒ+ ××  ×.€€Stock€options,€stock€grants,€aÏseverance€package,€and€retirement€benefits,€were€awarded€in€theÏamount€of€$1,598,856.× ƒ, ××  ×€€Damages€were€also€awarded€forÍhumiliation€and€embarrassment,€in€the€amount€of€$50,000.00,€andÏfor€attorneyððs€fees€of€$264,228.28.€€Prejudgment€interest€andÏfront€pay€were€not€awarded.€€The€total€award€was€$2,241,450.28.Ìà àà àThese€assessments€were€based€on€the€testimony€ofÏPlaintiffððs€witness,€Nathan€Botts,€who€reviewed€financialÏstatements€and€testified€as€to€the€compensation€received€by€DonÏOsborne.€€Defendants€argue€that€evidence€of€damages€areÏspeculative.€€However,€we€cannot€agree€and€find€that€theÏevidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€assessment€of€damagesÏby€the€Chancellor.€€òòLoveday€v.€Barnesóó,€909€S.W.2d€448€(Tenn.App.Ï1995);òò€€Jennings€v.€Hayesóó,€787€S.W.2d€1€(Tenn.App.Ï1989)(speculative€damages€are€prohibited€when€the€existence€ofÏdamages€is€uncertain,€not€when€the€amount€of€the€damage€isÏuncertain.)Ìà àà àPlaintiff€also€raises€issues€as€to€the€damages,€andÏclaims€that€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€not€awarding€a€consultingÏpayment€earned€by€Osborne,€prejudgment€interest,€and€front€pay.€ÏThe€determination€not€to€award€damages€for€the€consultingÏagreement€is€a€finding€of€fact€entitled€to€a€presumption€ofÏcorrectness€and€is€not€preponderated€against€on€our€review.òò€ÏLoveday.óó€€The€decision€not€to€grant€prejudgment€interest€isÏwithin€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court€and€will€not€beÍdisturbed€on€appeal€unless€the€record€reveals€a€manifest€abuseÏof€discretion.òò€€Spencer€v.€A„1€Crane€Service,€Inc.óó,€880€S.W.2dÏ938€(Tenn.€1994).€€No€abuse€of€discretion€is€found€on€thisÏrecord.€€The€Chancellor€refused€to€grant€front€pay€because€heÏdetermined€that€the€harm€ended€with€the€1995€merger€of€HeritageÏFederal€and€First€American.€€Front€pay€may€be€granted€whereÏreinstatement€is€not€feasible.€€òòCoffey€v.€Fayette€TubularÏProductsóó,€929€S.W.2d€326,332€(Tenn.€1996).€€But€an€award€ofÏfront€pay€is€limited€by€the€ð ðestimated€remaining€tenureÏplaintiff€would€have€enjoyed€with€his€company€absent€theÏdiscriminatory€conduct.ð ð€€òòSandlin€v.€Corporate€Interiors,€Inc.óó,Ï972€F.2d€1212,€1215€(10th€Cir.€1992).€€Given€the€elimination€ofÏHeritage€as€a€corporate€entity,€we€find€no€basis€to€reverse€theÏChancellor€on€this€issue.Ìà àà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€isÏaffirmed€with€costs€of€the€appeal€assessed€to€appellants€and€theÏcause€remanded.€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌDon€T.€McMurray,€J.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.ÌÌÌ